Skip to Content
forgot your password?
Log In

Please take a minute to register as a member of our site!

BakingTech 2019 Paper Review Guidelines

 

 PAPER REVIEW INSTRUCTIONS

Please read all instructions carefully before you begin.
Review must be completed by 5:00 PM (ET) on Wednesday, May 16, 2018

 

PAPER REVIEW INSTRUCTIONS CONTENTS/MENU

 Paper Review and Decision Timeline

  • May 3: Call for Paper submission site closes
  • May 7: Paper review site opens
  • May 7 - 16: Review & score submissions
  • May 16: Paper review site closes at 5:00 PM (ET)
  • May 17 - 18: Scores and comments, compiled and averaged.
  • May 18: Scores and comments sent to committee prior to Planning Meeting
  • May 20 - 22: Planning Committee review submissions, scores, and comments as a team, makes final decision, and slate paper into BakingTech 2019 schedule
  • Late June: Authors notified of paper status

 General Submission Requirements and Guidelines

If you haven't already done so, take a moment to review the submission guidelines, submission requirements and areas of interest that were communicated to the authors in the Call for Papers.  Take these into consideration when you score the submissions.

Top

 Grading Process

You will use the online grading program for reviewing and scoring of the submissions.  The link to the online grading system will be sent to you on May 7.

You have two options for reviewing the submissions:

  1. You can review the abstracts online and then as you review you can assign each submission a score and add additional comments.  If you leave the online grading system, you will be able to re-enter the grading system, through your specific link sent to you via survey monkey, and start where you left off.
  2. You may print the abstracts, read them off-line, and then return to the online review system to record your grades and comments.

You may download and print the submissions by clicking on the below links:

Top

 Review and Scoring Guidelines

All reviewers should use the online grader to enter scores, comments and recommendations.

  • The review process must be completed by 5:00 pm (ET) on May 16, 2018
  • The content of all submissions is to be kept confidential and authors should not be contacted.

Scores and comments will be compiled, averaged and transmitted to the Program Committee for your review as a team prior to May 21.  The Planning Committee will meet to finalize paper submissions on May 21.

Key points to remember:

  • Use the entire scale from 1 to 7; if you give all submissions 4s and 5s, you may be unable to identify the best papers.  
  • The best papers present data or tell a story that is new, true and important

Avoid a potential conflict of interest
It is recommended that you recuse yourself from scoring a submission if you meet one of the following criteria:

  • If you work in the same department or company as the author
  • If you have a professional connection to the work presented in the paper

Top

 Grading Scale

Grade all paper submissions assigning a score 1 (worst) to 7 (Outstanding).  

  1. Unacceptable - Do not accept
  2. Poor - Borderline Acceptability
  3. Fair - Acceptable
  4. Good - Solid
  5. Very Good -> Excellent
  6. Excellent -> Outstanding
  7. Outstanding - Best Papers

Ratings 4 - 7: Imply that the paper is worthy of presentation
Ratings 2 - 3: Might still merit presentation if the existing literature on topic is inconsistent or meager, or if observation is potentially provocative.
Rating 1: Implies strongly that a paper must not be presented.

Top

 Criteria to be considered for Scoring

You may "weigh" the following characteristics as you see fit.  For example, the importance of the topic might be considered so great as to outweigh some problems with "research design."  Or, the design may be so inadequate that despite the importance of the topic the paper is borderline acceptable or unacceptable.

All criteria will use the above score/rating scale unless noted.

  1. Originality:  Were novel concepts, ideas or approaches used?  Does the paper challenge existing paradigms or develop new methodologies or technologies?  If the paper presents an extension or replication of previous work or presentation, is the new study better than previous ones, and therefore adds genuinely new information to present knowledge.
  2. Relevant: Is the subject matter addressed in this presentation appropriate or important to the industry? 
  3. Appeal: Is this presentation likely to appeal to conference attendees?
  4. Clarity: Submission demonstrates that author can present the topic in a clear and appropriate manner.  Keep in mind the language and grammatical errors.  If the author didn't invest the time to check for language and grammatical errors - how much investment will they put into developing the full presentation?
  5. Commercialism: Do you feel that this presentation is a commercial presentation, sales pitch product demonstration?  Rating Scale/Score: Yes or No
    • To review the Society's commercialism policy, click here.
  6. Overall score/rating of submission

All the above will require a score/rating when completing a review of the submission.  You will be requested to submit additional comments (see below) of the submission.  Additional comments are not required but they are strongly encouraged.

  • Weaknesses of Submission
  • Strengths of Submission
  • Overall Comments

Sample Paper Scoring Sheet

Top

 Downloadable Documents

Top

close (X)